ArticleEndoscopy international open2026
Efficacy of gel immersion endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal lesions.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Endoscopic Closure After Colorectal ESD: A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis on Its Efficacy in Preventing Adverse Events.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and study aims: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for colorectal lesions has become widely accepted but remains technically demanding, with perforation risk related to luminal distension and suboptimal visualization. Gel immersion ESD (GI-ESD) may offer mechanistic advantages over conventional CO Patients and methods: In this single-center retrospective study, 426 consecutive colorectal ESD cases (from January 2022 to December 2024) were analyzed. C-ESD was performed from January 2022 to March 2024; GI-ESD using Viscoclear (Otsuka Pharmaceutical Factory, Tokushima, Japan) from April to December 2024. After excluding non-epithelial lesions, 392 patients were included, including interrupted procedures. The primary outcome was adverse events (perforation, delayed bleeding). Secondary outcomes were en bloc and R0 resection rates, procedure time, and postoperative inflammatory response. Results: Of 392 patients, 293 underwent C-ESD and 99 underwent GI-ESD were analyzed. En-bloc and R0 resection rates were comparable between GI-ESD and C-ESD (97.0% vs. 99.9%, Conclusions: GI-ESD achieved curative outcomes comparable to C-ESD while reducing perforation risk; PECS remained comparable between groups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.